Content area
Full text
Contents
- Abstract
- Confrontation Reduces Bias but Comes With Social Costs
- The Role of Trust
- Overview of Current Research
- Transparency and Openness
- Study 1
- Method
- Design and Participants
- Procedure
- Measures
- Trust
- Negative Other-Directed Affect, Versus Negative Self-Directed Affect
- Nonprejudiced Image Threat
- Social Costs
- Postconfrontation Stereotypic Responding
- Results
- Preliminary Analyses
- Trust, Social Costs, and Possible Mediators
- Postconfrontation Stereotypic Responding
- Discussion
- Study 2
- Method
- Design and Participants
- Procedure
- Measures
- Liking
- Stereotypic Responding
- Results
- Preliminary Analyses
- Effects of Confrontation and Trust Manipulation on Social Costs and Possible Mediators
- Social Costs
- Negative Other-Directed Affect
- Nonprejudiced Image Threat
- The Mediating Role of Negative Other-Directed Affect and Nonprejudiced Image Threat on Social Costs
- Postconfrontation Stereotypic Responding
- Negative Self-Directed Affect
- Stereotypic Responding
- The Mediating Role of Negative Self-Directed Affect on Stereotypic Responding
- Discussion
- Study 3
- Method
- Design and Participants
- Procedure
- Measures
- Stereotypic Responding
- Results
- Effects of Confrontation and Partner Condition on Social Costs and Possible Mediators
- Social Costs
- Trust
- Negative Other-Directed Affect
- The Mediating Role of Trust and Negative Other-Directed Affect on Social Costs
- Postconfrontation Stereotypic Responding
- Negative Self-Directed Affect
- Stereotypic Responding
- Negative Self-Directed Affect and Stereotypic Responding
- Discussion
- General Discussion
- Theoretical Contributions
- Practical Implications
- Limitations and Future Directions
- Conclusion
Figures and Tables
Abstract
Confronting, or calling out people for prejudiced remarks, reduces subsequent expressions of prejudice. However, people who confront others incur social costs: Confronters are disliked, derogated, and avoided relative to others who have not confronted. These social costs hurt the confronter and reduce the likelihood of future confrontation. The present studies (N = 1,019) integrate the close relationships and prejudice reduction literatures to examine whether people who are confronted assign fewer social costs when they trust the confronter. Study 1 provided correlational evidence that people who were confronted for making a sexist remark experienced less irritation and annoyance (i.e., negative other-directed affect) if they trusted the confronter, which, in turn, reduced social costs. Manipulation of trust in Study 2 with non-Black participants provided causal evidence that trust buffers against social costs. Being confronted predictably led to more negative other-directed affect and social...





